*1 51 done, Although Local 1215 insists that Richfield this court has stated that properly exhaust its administrative did not 179.66, 5, Minn.St. subd. is “unclear and remedies. understand,” difficult International Teamsters, Brotherhood of Local No. 320 v. judi It is fundamental that before City Minneapolis, 417, 225 proceedings cial review of administrative N.W.2d under the circumstances in the permitted, appropriate channels will be present case, Richfield did not have to appeal be of administrative must followed. present these issues to judicial panel again Indeed, power may not be- “[i]nherent * * * judicial fore leg seeking be asserted unless reasonable relief. procedures are first islative-administrative Thus, the trial court is affirmed in all Lyon County In re Clerk of exhausted.” respeсts, with exception that the award 172, 181, Compensation, 308 Courts’ Minn. provide modified to the extended (1976). However, 786 N.W.2d beyond contract cannot be effective Decem- absolute; by prac it is tempered rule is not ber 1978. ticality. doctrine exhaustion ad Affirmed. applicable ministrative remedies is not would futile to seek such re where it
dress; consequently, a so party situated JJ., TODD, PETERSON and took no part may go the courts for redress. State in the consideration or decision this case. Olson, v. Medical Examiners Board of N.W.2d Minn.
Also, constitutional issues are properly
raised Richfield decided
a and do not come within the ambit of court provision 5. re subd. This
Minn.St.
quires party to return to the arbitrators provision
when a contract would violate or rule, with Minnesota conflict statute Minnesota, STATE of Respondent, charter, municipal home rule ordinancе or resolution, or a of any rule state board or governing registration licensure or agency STEWART, Appellant. James Dean Absent from that list employees. is the state constitution. It be inferred that No. 47072. authority panel does not have to make Supreme Court of Minnesota. concerning determinations the constitution. it unreasonable to Nor is believe Feb. 1979.
legislature did not want the arbitrators to power have the to declare PELRA or its
provisions unconstitutional. The whole ten- law
or of the is constructive: arbitrators parties;
are between the disputes to resolve
public employee labor strife and work cessa prevented; to be
tions are arbitrators provisions of the agree
are to ensure that comport law. It existing
ments with does prescriptions consistent with these
not seem legislature goals also intend to
permit the arbitrators to be able declare void, provisions
PELRA its null and undermining legislature all
thereby that the accomplish.
seeks to
53
conclusion that Stewart’s actions were emi-
nently dangerous to more than
person
one
as
required
for an instruction of third-de-
gree murder under Minn.St. 609.195(1).
Hanson,
State v.
(1970). See,
N.W.2d
also, State
Jones,
Defender, Phebe
C. Paul
Public
S.
Nesgoda,
1.
The Craft
the Criminal
4 Wm. Mitchell L.Rev.
26.
Yes,
reject
argument
“A.
sir.
defendant. We
be
cause we have consistently stated that char
“Q.
you
And in that letter did
indicate
acter
evidence
be used to
you
going
guilt
to me that
were
to have to
assess
as
against
credibility.
take measures
me to assure me
well as
State v. Dem
you
prosecuted
wouldn’t be
for that mings, 310
(1976);
Minn.
“A. What do mean? instruction improper. would have been “Q. you In that letter did indicate to 4. At the commencement of jury would have whatever me that to take selection, prosecution and defense necessary prevent measures were me joined in a public that the be ex prosecuting you from in this case? cused from the courtroom during the voir Yes, sir. I “A. did. examination, dire and the court so ordered. “Q. you, And that count on could jurors After four selected, had been necessary to whatever was to re- do media asked the trial court to lift the ban position prosecut- me from that move on the public. This request was refused. ing you? media, under Rule Rules of Crim know if it in them “A. I don’t Procedure, appealed inal to this court and words, so, I think yes. exact we ordered the voir dire proceedings open “Q. you just And that wanted to re- When the public. pro trial court *5 your turn to southern soil? ceedings recommenced, were the trial judge Yes, “A. sir.” made inappropriate certain remarks to the county attorney brought then to the jury panel, criticizing the decision of this appellant attention the fact that had jury’s objection court. No was made at the time apology: written a letter of also by defense counsel. The remaining jurors “Q. prosecutor] a week [By you, Did impaneled. motion, were post-trial At a an also me or so later write a letter allegation made, of error was claiming apology? form of an prejudiced these remarks the defendant be Yes, “A. sir. chilling cause of the effect of these remarks “Q. in that you And letter had upon jury panel as to their answers to it thought you about and indicated that questions put to them at voir dire. We you felt terrible about what had written have transcript examined the of the voir me? to dire proceedings and conclude that the re Yes, “A. sir. I did. of marks the trial court not did “Q. you And were angry posi- at the prospective jurors adverse effects on the you put yourself you tion had in and took infringe upon the defendant’s to have your hostilities out on me? However, a by impartial jury. fair trial we Yes, “A. sir. Not hostilities but an- do by note that comments judge, trial ger. decision, criticizing this court’s pro made to “Q. that you You indicated knew that spective jurors during litiga the course of childish, say it was the least? tion, place have no system juris our of Yes,
“A. sir.” prudence. testimony Admission of such was not suffi- 5. The most difficult issue in this case ciently prejudicial to constitute reversible shackling concerns the Stewart error. voir 23, 1975, dire and trial. On October Turning issue, charges to the Stewart was indicted on next first-de- gree murder aggravated robbery. claims that even if the evidence was admis He sible, pled guilty. not giving request, the trial court erred not a At Stewart’s limiting instruction that the evidence could trial psychiatric court ordered a examina- only credibility pursuant be used to assess the tion to Rules 20.01 and “Dear Sir: On Novem- Procedure.
Rules of Criminal confined at the Stewart ber “Quite nasty, letter I wrote and at Peter Security Hospital St. Minnesota you wasn’t it? It was a shame mailed to De- the examination. On purposes of it, factly it was about to do but matter court ordered his cember the nature the letter was mе pending at Peter confinement St. continued composed. feeling I’m now like HE dou- report indi- psychiatric trial because L, I ble and have ever since wrote that However, on suicidal tendencies. cated thing. I want an appology to make the trial court ordered February wrong, not because it was jail county to the be- transfer Stewart’s totally I’m scared of what a letter of that hospi- at the state space limitations cause my nature case. I pending could do tal. wish my I could withdraw word’s to that letter: 10, 1975, while he was at
On December just angry position “I was at the I have hospital, wrote a Peter St. hostility placed myself my in and took out county attorney. threatening letter you. really on I know it was childish of stated: The letter say sleep me to the least. I can’t Sir my “Re: Get off back. anymore night, losing my I’m aware- Lundblad, “My Dear Mr. me, my society ness of around I wish I it hoping “I was would not be down, just lay my eye’s could close steps me drastic necessary for to take die, prison I can not make it in Sir there arresting possibility would dope place. in that Homosex- much your pho- on ahead with prefer go dozen’s, ual’s change my want to charge’s your on me. But I see now ney horrible life style living, I’ve been Sir I’m yellow. to life color is You are a true sorry, myself go but I will kill before I no pompus cocksucker —sir. You have prison, me, prison help can’t but this human life and are an animal concern for can, place my please I’ll do time here Sir entirely Breed. I see I of an disordered god’s please please. Sir for sake let me against assure me must take measure’s to *6 my got prison Sir Mother would die if I you I prossicution and there fore I assure me, please help please help time So Sir me you you proceed will kill if to take man, this Poor excuse of a I’m a murderer in through Court. you “thank word, any I like man will the true “truthfully yours a necessary step’s distroy take the to dan- you such as are. gerous beast “James dean Stewart” give’s you Earth to “What on In late December Dr. Eg- Delmer try place the line and to put my life on gert Sweet, Roger and Dr. the examining prison you me in for life? Have a misiah psychiatrists, reports submitted their complex you know like God? Sir —in Eggert’s report рart: court. Dr. states in “ the Devil himself would feel ashamed. * * * my opinion, In James Dean Cesspool stagnated Your mind is so and mentally Regardless Stewart is not ill. decrepit reprobate your- a like foul that, I wish capaci- to comment on his you. try stomach You me and self could ty proceedings against to understand the putting you on me out of you can count defense, him participate in his and on with me Mr. commission. Don’t fuck other He matters. is able to understand me, just County Attorney, put release me proceedings against him. There is my let me return to Southern Soil. regarding some distortion the prosecuting yours, “Respectfully attorney present. might at He become “James D. Stewart” get vocal or out of in order court. He has prosecutor threatened the Subsequently, on December and has even writing. to Mr. done so in I have no apology sent a letter doubt that physical security It stated: provided Lundblad. can be
5? jury, if surprise following it would not me place courtroom but took upon the rec- * * disorderly. the defendant became ord: “MR. BUNDLIE: you, Thank Your my opinion, “In there are homicidal Honor, Honor. Your I do have pre- some There be several rea- tendencies. one, trial motions. Number as the Court that he a low places sons for this. One is observe, will the defendant custody. is in his own life and he tends to value on presently, He is moment, at this in similarly. value the lives of others hand- cuffs, and I would move at Secondly, the value of life is this time that another’s at all times that the defendant compared exposed rather minimal with his own is to or Thirdly, observing jury panel as we are wishes. handcuffs be present, may explain he tend to his diffi- removed. I have no knowl- edge, as a of someone else not culties result indication or belief whatsoever that written, liking him and as he has this is the defendant going is any cause dis- him to threaten the life of sufficient for turbance in the courtroom and think it In person. my opinion, the other there is would be extremely prejudicial to his de- strong engage a likelihood that he will fense appear to a jury jury panel seriously harmful conduct.” that, handcuffs. Besides I would like him to be able help me out at the counsel Dr. report part: Sweet’s stated in table giving papеr him pencil “ * * * interview, During this help make notes. various against accused made threats “THE COURT: Is there any reason prosecuting attorney and alluded to cer- of, Lundblad, know Mr. why things tain that he would do got once he granted? should not be into the reported being courtroom. He Well, “MR. LUNDBLAD: yes, two rea- very unable to remember much about the sons. The first one is that Eggert Dr. robbery-homicide, though even he has put Sweet, I which, don’t remember the ex- handwriting in his fairly own detailed amining psychiatrist or psychologist, indi- of the offense. Inspite version of his cates that the defendant has being highly agitated in a indicated depressed cane, he will raise state, or words to that there was nonetheless little or no effect, in the brought evidence of remorse courtroom if he’s about the death victim, trial; (i. that, and the thing e. T other don’t remember I don’t him, fuck, shooting I don’t know if it’s in the you’re even remem- court file or if it, killing ber him. aware of going Minnesota is but the defendant made a personal example make an of me and fuck me threat to me for which he later letter, over. I won’t let them they apologized by are Ibut think the exhi- *7 going to day.’ find out on court ‘All my bition of those threats sufficient that the help got life I asked for and never it.’ T courtroom require decorum would that he way people am the that I am because be secured handcuffs which would out- way.’) made me that weigh potential damage prejudice or
to his charged case. He’s been with first ture of these reactions and because sidered ness will having with this individual.” any further determinations of mental ill- Stewart “ * [*] * Because of the transient na- more dangerous should, have to be made frequent to himself and this time, daily by personnel be con- contact others, Mr. know what is. are degree udicial to a defendant than presence of the jury. fendant remain handcuffed even in the from the going reason would prejudicial murder. jury. to add to that I If I don’t think handcuffs There are and attention-getting anything It’s not prejudice. is more that, going that the de- going I don’t to be to be prej- For appeared in April plenty things On of other jury is going court for trial. Prior to selection of the to be upon. attendant Well, “THE shackled DEFENDANT: about two he be Could “THE COURT: ago weeks I was took to the doctor and would be way so his hands in some other I County, county Nobles think that’s the write? free to there, he and the sheriff didn’t handcuff I don’t know about “MR LUNDBLAD: well, me or he he didn’t handcuff didn’t — some- mean, by legs or feet or You that. nothing me or or shackle me down. He thing? that, well, took me to a doctor and I think Yes, to the chair. COURT: “THE when he took me to the doctor he I don’t know. LUNDBLAD: “MR. went in the doctor and left inme law something that That would visiting by myself room to see the doctor be, you would have to people enforcement any raising and if I’d had intention of I don’t know, capacity to do. have the leaving trying escape, cane or I or how cuffs for ankles they know if that, could have walked out of I handle it. they would realize how serious this crime is and I Honоr, Your the de- “MR. BUNDLIE: anything don’t want to add to it. be allowed has asked if he would fendant Well, wish, “THE COURT: if Mr. something point. to that say Bundlie, you can have the sheriff tell me Yes, you may. “THE COURT: what he feels about it. time of DEFENDANT: At the
“THE “MR. Certainly. BUNDLIE: I that I wrote to Mr. Lundblad the letter “THE I COURT: think that at feeling depressed personal mat- point grant your I would not motion as of Dani between me and happened ters that now but if wish to have the sheriff the blame on him putting Price. I was tell me on the record as to what his I, myself raising cane and not all, feelings it’s their ultimate re- —after court, to. I’d I wouldn’t have no reason sponsibility security to maintain the just get this over with and I have like to everyone in the courtroom and I we think Mr. Lund- feelings no towards personal should hear from them. anybody and as far blad or thе Court “MR. I if BUNDLIE: wonder the sher- hostile, If I as I haven’t been hostile. county iff of this don’t think the sher- —I cane, to raise I would raise it would want County present. iff of Nobles jailers jail they with the at the I’m in and “MR. LUNDBLAD: No. I’m sure he’s they testify could that I you, would tell I deputy not. think from that don’t cause no disturbance whatsoever. county is here. think, Honor, Your “MR. BUNDLIE: I “THE COURT: But we can do that he that he deserves a chance to show tomorrow, too. selecting We can start will behave him- can behave himself and is for jury today. as peo- There will be self in the courtroom. Well, Honor, “MR. BUNDLIE: Your sheriffs, also, I deputy ple present, the defendant will be in the courtroom in going think that there is to be don’t handcuffs when the comes in. danger. wonder— Well, I think that we “THE COURT: “THE COURT: I don’t feel there’s suf- check with the sheriff and see should light ficient —in of what county attor- he and I security arrangements has what me, ney has told and the defendant has *8 just way soon have it in such a would as act, admitted the I and don’t believe that he can write and take notes and so that anything change without more I should do, forth, he should have a to which what we have I now. think that the I know whether he can do it don’t responsible security sheriffs are for I way, very that not well. something should have from them as to I say “THE DEFENDANT: Can some- they necessary what believe is to main- thing to the Court? courtroom, security tain as well as their experience “THE Yes. with the defendant. COURT: Honor, plead Your if I to degree “MR. LUNDBLAD: to second that the infor- might, get I could the sheriff at noon and mation contained there leads the Cоurt to just prior going him here to in to believe that your have motion should be de- nied, you talk to jury. the He could about Mr. pick only Bundlie. That’s the infor- mation I go it. that have to on. It’s medical information, know, as and I feel that want somebody “THE COURT: If I rely have to on that this time. Your County, you Nobles would have to from motion is denied.” arrangements that. make discussion.)” reports The “(Off-the-record by referred to the trial court the are medical reports Eggert Dr. personally apol- this time Also at defendant Dr. Sweet. attorney county to the and shook ogized Pursuant order, hands with him. to trial court chair handcuffed to the during the 30,1975, following April selection of a On result, trial. As a he was the person in prior any but to the submission jury, the courtroom rise not to eaсh time the evidence, the on the rec- following occurred judge entered or through exited the many ord: weeks trial. testified, When defendant Honor, I “MR. BUNDLIE: Your wrists were together his handcuffed so that is, further that I’d like one motion and he when took the to testify, oath he had to my motion to have the defendant renew raise both being sworn, hands. After he of restraints he’s in the court- freed while was then handcuffed to the witness chair. gone through We’ve three room. weeks now; this is the During trial, the end of third week of the the course of defense in There’s proceedings any this case. been no counsel did instructions indication shown that are nec- that the restraints was not to consider the hand- essary. they cuffing I don’t are assessing believe defendant in the рroof that having determining guilt I think the defendant hand- or or innocence. Nor did to his he’s in the cuffed chair while court- the trial court an offer such instruction sua cannot have an help sponte. room adverse return Following the of a guilty verdict, upon jurors effect the relative to the Stewart’s counsel made various guilt post-trial innocence of this defendant. motions. its In memorandum ac- unduly prejudices companying the the believe order that denied the mo- tions, basis for part: defendant and forms the a deni- the trial court in stated completely of a al fair trial. “In this memo Court will only the refer “THE by defendant, COURT: Mr. Lundblad. one issue the raised issue, handcuff objections as the other Honor, “MR. Your LUNDBLAND: clearly defendant are without merit. nоthing happened during fact has regard last three weeks with “The Court require based its decision to that the security problems may be because of the defendant be handcuffed all stages that the has been of the trial and proceedings reason hand- connection because: one knows therewith cuffed chair. No that.
I think on behalf of the sheriff of Jackson “1. overwhelming There was evidence County and the of the courtroom security guilt of his degree. of a homicide some be denied motion should and I “2. Medical reports. opinion of arguments previ- we’ve made believe our doctors was that defendant was ously I’m sure the Court recalls the potentially as he dangerous felt no re- for the the state’s reаsons basis for mo- morse for his act. That he has homicidal objection to defendant’s motion. tion tendencies, places he a low value on his own “THE COURT: The Court would have life and tends to value the lives of say again basis of others similarly. that on the materi- That value of an- submitted to it other’s life is compared als counsel consider rather minimal *9 ruling of the his own doctor expressed on the motion offer wishes. The before an engage he will opinion seriously Turning claim, to defendant’s first the fact conduct, that he become harmful the evidence overwhelmingly demon get vocal or out of order in court. guilt strates his deprive does not him of a verbally writing “3. That he and in right to a fair trial. g., e. State the life prosecuting threatened of the at- Mastrian, 51, 75, 171 N.W.2d torney. (1969), denied, certiorari 397 U.S. during That
“4.
sheriff
(1970).
S.Ct.
effort juror as to each as tо In commenting upon applicable anything whether or not there was about law, the court situation, the defendant held that and his his of con looks or condition that would influence them in frontation of witnesses under the Sixth any way guilt in their decision of or inno- Amendment could be lost a criminal juror cence. Each eventually selected in- consent or misconduct. Fur negative dicated to ques- to such ther, the court said there are at least three tions.” constitutional ways for a trial judge to han dle an obstreperous (1) defendant: Bind record, On he Stewart claims him, gag thereby keeping present; him guarantee was denied his constitutional of a (2) cite him contempt; (3) fair trial. He also claims the take him court should out of sponte instructed the sua courtroom until promises that the he restraints should not be conduct properly. considered in as himself The Allen deci sessing the evidence determining guilt. sion has subject been the of numerous legal
fit
commentaries,2
may
them
many
preferable
instances,
critical.3 The
be
in some
the
grant
election of the trial
to use
Allen
judge
decision seems to
unrestricted
restraints
instead
banishment
is not
in
judge
the trial
itself
discretionary powers to
grounds for reversal.4
the
acknowledging
while
that
constitutional
being
rights
infringed
of the defendant are
Finally, we must consider Rule
upon. Allen does not set
forth in detail the
2,
subd. Rules of Criminal Procedure:
applied
or the
standards
be
circumstanc-
“a. During the
the
trial
defendant
permit
application.
es which
their
The in-
shall be seated
can
where he
effectively
is
illustrative of the
particularly
stant case
consult with his counsel and can see and
been no
since there has
overt act
problem,
hear the proceedings.
trial,
but medical
opin-
the defendant
“b. An incarcerated
wit-
of overt
probability
ion indicates the
action.
appear
ness shall not
court
in the dis-
tinctive
prisoner.
attire of a
also
This court has
considered the
State v.
shackling.
In
“c.
permissible
Defendants
and witnesses
issue
shall
Coursolle,
subjected
not be
physical
97
255 Minn.
N.W.2d
restraint
while in court unless
trial
472,
judge
the
has
(1959),
said:
476
our court
* * *
reasonably
found such restraint
necessary
recognized
“It
is
that
it is
security.
maintain order or
If the trial
within thе
discretion of
trial court to
restraint,
judge orders such
he shall state
have a
when it is
prisoner shackled
mani-
his reasons on the
pres-
record outside the
fest that
precaution
necessary
such a
ence
jury.
physical
of the
Whenever
re-
prevent
escape.
violence or
In exercising
straint of a defendant or witness occurs
its discretion the
must have
court
some
presence
jurors trying
case,
pris-
reason
on the conduct of the
based
the judge shall on
defend-
the time of
trial to
oner at
authorize
jurors
ant
instruct
that
those
such re-
right
a
to be
important
so
forfeited.
In
straint is not
be
in assessing
considered
words,
other
there must
some immedi-
the proof
determining guilt.”
necessity
ate
for the use
the shackles.”
general procedures
This rule states the
used
Jones,
v.
in State
recently,
More
311
However,
ordering
restraints.
we note
(1976),
247
427
this
Minn.
N.W.2d
court
that
it fails
our
fully express
position
held that
the defendant’s conduct had re
(1)
that
restraints
not be ordered
should
sulted in a waiver of his
to be free of
unless eminently necessary,
(2)
once
restraints,
discouraged
we strongly
shown,
necessity has
been
those
use of
restraints and stated
restraints which are reasonable and least
judge
court
the least
should order
coercive
coercive under the circumstances should be
restraints
reasonable under
circum
Moreover,
imposed.
preferable
it is
if the
Kluck,
See, also,
State
stances.
299
warning
gives
trial court
and uses sanc-
(1974);
State v.
Minn.
With these considerations in
we
of
defendant’s
Stewart
these
question
turn
the
to
unshackled.
claims
now to the
of whether
shackling
for
factors afford no basis
be-
his dis-
judge properly
trial court
exercised
none
actual
cause
concern
misconduct dur-
shackling
inquiry
cretion by
Stewart. Our
the trial.
ing
We subscribe to the view that
scrutiny,
is made with close
for Stewart’s
judge
trial
the
need
wait
for some
to a
rights
fundamental constitutional
fair
to
event
occur in the courtroom before im-
delicately
against
trial are being
balanced
See,
e. Loux v. United
g.,
posing restraints.
necessity
security
the
courtroom
and or-
States,
911,
(9
1968);
389
919
F.2d
Cir.
ABA
der.
Standards,
Jury, p.
By
(Approved
Trial
96
We
first
to the
for the
turn
basis
Draft, 1968). The “immediate necessity”
trial court’s deсision to shackle Stewart.
restraints,
our Courselle
required by
given in
Six reasons were
the trial court’s
decision, may exist because of inferences
post-trial
memorandum
defendant’s
mo
from attributes of the defendant or his
consider, however,
tions. We
are limited
Jones,
v.
supra,
conduct.5 In State
prior
we
the
grounds appearing
those
on
record
be imposed
held
restraint could
on a
shackling
at the time of
or time of subse
defendant who threatened courtroom mis-
quent
response
the court
rulings by
made in
conduct,
though
even
the actual misconduct
to motions at
to have
restraints
trial
the
did not occur.
Although
removed.
the reasons for shack
The
in
judge
trial
the
case
instant
ling need
based on
not be
evidence intro
was confronted
an extremely
with
difficult
trial,
duced
given
the defendant must be
reports
decision. The
strongly sug
medical
an opportunity
challenge
the reasons for
gested
possibility
the
of violence at trial.
Samuel,
United
v.
States
shackling.
examining
doctors stated that Stewart
(4th
1970),
court
jury, sponte, sua that his restraint should in assessing proof
not be considered
determining guilt. We note that under 2(c), Rule subd. Rules of Criminal John Turner, L. TURNER and Yvonne Procedure, the decision to instruct wife, Plaintiffs, husband and
on the use of restraints is left with defense
counsel. We believe this to be the better
v.
any imposition
rule since
requirement
HOUSE,
ALPHA PHI SORORITY
sponte
of sua
instructions
the trial court
Defendant,
transfers the trial strategy from defense
judge.
CO.,
counsel to the trial
Patterson v.
C. F.
&
HAGLIN SONS
defendant
Estelle,
(5 Cir.),
jury as to the consideration of restraints. Supreme Court of Minnesota. Affirmed. Feb. 1979.
OTIS, (dissenting). Justice there was
Granted medical evidence that was dangerous and homicid-